I

Commercial Fishing

May 1986

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission _____.

Staff Report

on

Commercial Fishing

May 1986

(Including Bay Plan Amendments Adopted June 19, 1986)

This document was prepared with fjnancial assistance from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource ~nagement, National Oceanic

and Atmospher i c Administration, under the provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Hanacement Act of 1972, as amended ,

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Thirty Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011

San Francisco, California 94l02-6080

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction i

Commercial Fisoing 1

Overview of Cotnmercial Fishing in the Bay Area 1

Economic Importance of Commercial Fishing 8

The Facilities Needed for Commercial Fishing 9

The Bay Area's Fishing Ports 10

The Threats to the Fishing Industry 12

Opportunities for Improving the Fishing Industry 14

Government's Role in Commercial Fishing 19

Notes 25

Commercial Shellfishing 27

Overview of Shellfish Harvesting in the Bay 27

The Threats to Shellfish Harve~ting 29

Future Opportunities for Shellfish Harvesting 31

The Commission's Role in Shellfish Harvestin~ 32

Notes 34

Mariculture 35

Overview of Mariculture 35

The Opportunities for Mariculture in t he Bay 38

Gove.rnment' s Role in Mari culture 40

The Comwissioo's Role 41

Notes 43

Conclusions 45

Adopted ~ay Plan Amendments 51

Sources 55

Page

List of Persons Contacted in Preparat ion of the Report 57

Appendix- A Fish Landed in San Francisco Bay (1984)

Appendix B - Description of Fish Landed in San Francisco Bay

Appendix C - Bay Area Shellfish Beds

List of Tables

Table 1 - San Francisco Bay's Portion of California Landings

Table 2 - Ranking of California Ports Based on Pounds Landed

Table 3 - Commercial Fish Landings at California Ports

2

3

4

INTRODUCTION

Although fishing has been an important use of San Francisco Bay for

hundreds of yea rs, the San Francisco Bay Plan did not include findings or

policies on commerc ial fishing activities or facilities. The commercial

fishing facilities around the Bay existed in the same locations in 1969 when

the Commission became a permanent state agency. As part of its the 1983-84

planning program, the Commission directed its staff to review the future of

commercial fishing, sbellfishing, and tnariculture in the Bay, and to determine

whether new findings and policies should be added to the Bay Plan. On June

19, 1986, the Commission adopted new findings and policies regarding

commercial fishing, sbellfishing, and mariculture, as recommended in this

report.

Staff has reviewed the status of commercial fishing activities around

the Bay, focusing on the types of support facilities essential to the Bay

commercial fishing industry and future opportunities for shellfish cultivation

aud harvesting and other mariculture.

This report is divided into four sections. Section I describes

commercial fishing in the Bay Area today, the number and location of fishing

boats, fishing boat mooring areas, offloading and handling areas, and the type

and numbers of fish landed. Thts section also reviews the future needs of the

industry for new mooring, offloading, and processing facilities. The second

section looks at commercial shellfishing in San Francisco Bay . Section III

-j-

reviews other opportunities for San Francisco Bay mariculture-the raising of

plants or animals in controlled aquatic environments, The report makes

recommendations for Commission action, including amending the Bay Plan to add

a new section on commercial fishing with new findings and policies, and adding

policy notes to specific Bay Plan maps. Finally, the Bay Plan amendment

adopted by the Commission on June 19, 1986, are included in this document.

-ii-

PART I: COMMERCIAL FISHING

An Overview of Commercial Fishing in the Bay Area

1/In 1984, about 38.5 million pounds- of fresh fish were unloaded at

the Bay Area's three major fishing ports--Sausalito, Oakland, and Sao

Francisco. Minor catches are also unloaded at Richmond~ Berkeley, San Jose,

Vallejo, Fremont, Emeryville, San Leandro, San Rafael, Hayward, and Benicia .

The Bay Area catch represents about eight and a half percent of the total

2/catch landed at California ports- (see Table 1).

Commercial fishing in the San Francisco aay Area has changed over time.

Much of this change has been a shift from harvesting longer lived fishes to

more quickly reproduciog species. Overfishing diminished the sardine and

shrimp fisheries; water pollution has eliminated commercial shellfish

harvesting. Years ago whales, sardines, and Dungeness crab were the basis for

the commercial fishing industry. Now herring make up a big portion of the

total catch. Despite these changes, the Bay Area's rank among California

commercial fishing ports has not changed significantly in the past 30 years

(see Table 2). However, in the past decade the weight of the catch unloaded

in Bay Area ports has more than doubled and the value of the fish has tripled

(see Table 3) . The commitment and flexibility of the Bay Area fishing

community has allowed the industry to thrive as the fish and the markets have

changed over time .

Based on the recent increases in the Bay Area fish landings, modest

further increases should continue in the Bay Area commercial fishing industry

-1-

TABLE 1

SAN FRANCISCO BAY'S PORTION OF CALIFORNIA LANDINGS

San Francisco Bay

State

Bay's Percentage of State Landings

Millions of Pounds

1940 1954 1965 1975 1984

189 20 17 18 38

1,225 621 544 861 444

15.4% 3.2% 3.1% 2.1% 8.5%

Value in Millions of Dollars

San Francisco Bay

State

Bay's Percentage of State Land i ngs

1940 1954 1965 1975 1984

1.5 2.5 3.5 5 16

19 64 66 ~ 126 163

8% 4% 5% 4% 10%

Source: Department of Fish and Game, California Marine Fish Landings~ Table 15

-2-

TABLE 2

RANKING OF CALIFORNIA PORTS BASED ON POUNDS LANDED

RANK 1940 1954 196.5 1975 1984

1, Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles

2. Mooterey San Diego Sao Diego Sant.a Barb Eureka

3. San Fran Santa Barb Eureka San Diego Monterey

4 . San Diego Eureka Monterey Eureka San Diego

5. Eureka Mon terey Santa Barb Monterey San Fran

6 . Santa Barb San Fran San Fran Santa Barb

San Fran: San Francisco

Santa Barb: Santa Barbara

Source: Department of Fish and Game, California Marine Fish Landings, Table 15

-3-

TABLE: 3

COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS AT CALIFORNIA PORTS

Millions of Pounds

1940 1954 1965 1975 1984

Los Angeles 522 359 383 602 237

Sao Diego 128 138 65 71 43

Santa Barbara 5 51 22 76 28

San Francisco 189 20 17 18 38

Eureka 11 27 31 55 50

Monterey 370 26 25 38 45

TOTAL 1,225 621 544 861 444

Value in Millions of Dollars

1940 1954 1965 1975 1984

Los Angeles 7 35 45 81 85

San Diego 7 22 9 18 20

Santa Barbara .5 2 1.5 5 13

San Francisco 1.5 2.5 3.5 5 16

Eureka 1 2 5 13 19

Monterey 2 1 1.5 4 7

TOTAL 19 64 66 126 163

Source: Department of Fish and Game, California Marine Fish Landings, Table 15

-4-

in the next ten years. Another substantial rise in the catch is unlikely 1n

the near future hecause the harvest o herring, which has made up a large

portion of the increase in Bay Area landings is limited by Department of Fish

and Game. However, the stability of the Bay Area's fishing industry indicates

that it should be able to maintain its recent growth in the near future.

Relative to other California ports, the Bay Area has been largely unaffected

by t he dramatic changes that have impacted t he West Coast commercial fishing

industry in the past ten years.

Increased investments in new boats and the creation of the 0 200 mile

fishery conservation zone" have opened the industry to new fishermen . This

fishery zone is t he area contiguous to the three mile terri torial sea of the

U. s. and extends seaward 200 nautical miles. The zone was established by the

1976 Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to protect fisheries

within this area from overharvesting by both foreign and domestic fishermen.

Foreign fishermen must receive permission to fish in this area and are only

allowed to eaten fish not harvested by U. S. fishermen .

At the same time, "El Nino", the intrusion of warm water offshore

California, caused fish to move from tbeir traditional grounds, Impacts of El

Nino plus increased regulation and dwindling supplies of salmon on t he north

coast have severely limited the catch. As a result, many fishermen in the

Pacific Northwest are facing bankruptcy. The El Nino has also caused tuna to

depart from southeru California coastal waters. This, in combination with t he

increased impact. of tuna from the Far East, has resulted in a sharp decline in

landiogR at Los Angeles and San Diego fishing ports (see Table 3).

These changing conditions have posed less of a problem for the Bay Area

fishing community which has not made la rge investments in new, bigger boats,

-5-

3/-but instead still uses smaller, older vessels in the 20 to 60 foot range.

These boats are capable of traveling long distances but not taking full

advantage of the 200 mile fishery conservation zone. They are more than

adequate to carry oo the traditional short trips to the Gulf of the Farallones

and other nearby coastal fishing areas and can take short trips into the 200

mile zone . The traditional nearby fishing grounds contain rockfish, halibut,

and other table fish that have increased in popularity . Thus, the Bay Area

fleet has escaped many of the problems that have affected the West Coast

fishery, and it has benefitted £rom the increased popularity of fish in the

American diet.

Year-round the Bay fleet seeks bottom fish including flounder, sole, and

rockfish (commonly sold as red snapper). Seasonally, the Bay Area fleet

f i shes for sa l mon, crab, herring, albacore tuna, swordfish , halibut, and black

cod. Herring and anchovies are the only commercial fish actually caught in

San Francisco Bay, All the others are caught outside the Golden Gate,

although many spend some of their lives in t he Bay . In summer much of the

fish is sold to Bay Area restaurants and consumers, although virtually all of

winter's herring catch is exported to Japan.

Most of the Bay Area's commercia1 fishermen offload directly to a buying

facility. In Sausalito and Oakland, boats can also moor at these facilities.

The buyers offload, clean, and cut-up the fish then ice them for

distribution. At Fisherman's Wharf the close proxi mity of the boat berthing

to the location of the buyers adds t o the efficiency of the overall fish

processing process. Although t here are pressures to relocate the berths and

the onshore facilities to the less valuable property south of the Bay Bridge,

commercial fishing facilities will probably remain at Fisherman ' s Wharf

-6-

because the Port of San Francisco is committed to renovating both the berthing

and the onshore warehouses and offices.

All of the waterfront commercial fishing facilities handle fish caught

locally and some Bay Area seafood wholesalers, handlers, and brokers also

import large amounts of fish and shellfish. Imported seafood ranges from

Tamales Bay oysters and Monterey Bay squid to Maine lobster and Norweigan

salmon . Scallops, large shrimp, and lobsters, which are not caught by Bay

Area fishermen, must be imported. Ot her fish, such as the Norwegian salmon,

are imported when local salmon is out of season or unavailable. Some

waterfront fims handle 100 percent local fish ; others handle up to 50 percent

imported fish . Therefore, not all commercial fishing operations require

4/waterfront locations .- Firms that handle only imports are sometimes

located at inland sites where they are closer to transportation facilities.

For those firms handling local catches, a pier is always required for

offloading fish , However, the offloading can be accomplished in a variety of

ways. For example, herring are offloaded at many different piers, of ten using

suction pumps. Some fishermen offload directly to trucks which t~ansport the

fish to a handling facili t y ,

The Bay Area commercial fishing fleet, whose owners reside in one of the

nine Bay Area counties (except Sonoma) 1 is made up of over 3,000 boats, which

is about 40 percent of the State's licensed fleet . Because it costs only $125

a year to register a fishing boat, the fleet includes many boats used only

part-time, weekends, or seasonally . Only about 200 boats are used full-time

for commercial fishing. During t he December to March herring season, an

additional 100 boats from other ports come into the Bay to fish.~/

-7-

Economic Importance of Commercial Fishing

Commercial fishermen make up a very small fraction of the Bay Area

population, and the commercial fishing industry is less than one tenth of one

6/percent of the region's economy.- Yet commercial fishing is a critical

component to other Bay Area economic activities and generates regionwide

revenue well beyond the value of the fish . The fresh fish caught are

essential to the success of the many fresh seafood restaurants and markets in

the region. In 1985, the two Bay Area restaurants with the nighest gross

profits-Spenger's Fish Grotto in Berkeley and Scott's Seafood Grill in

Oaklaod--depended on fresh fish for their success. The ftshing industry is

one of the few extractive, basic industries in the Bay Area. The industry

also generates secondary economic benefits through boat maintenance costs,

berth rentals, boat financing, insurance, fisherman profits, wholesaler

profits, processor profits, and retail profits,

According to multipliers developed by the University of California to

determine direct, indirect, and induced economic impact of California

fisheries,21 every $1.00 worth of herring landed contributes $3.46 to the

State's e~onomy. Therefore, in 1984 the $1,800,000 worth of herring landed in

the Bay Area resulted in an overall economic impact of $6,228,000. The

overall value of Bay Area commercial fishing to the State's economy is

estimated to be about $30 million.

The fishing industry is also a key component of the Bay Area tourist

8/industry. A recent study - determined that 84 percent of tourists who

visited San Francisco named Fisherman's Wharf as their favorite attraction.

Thus, fishing activities played a role in generating the $1 . 4 billion in

spending that tourists contributed to San Francisco's economy in 1984.

-8-

The Facilities Needed for Commercial Fishing

Io addition to requiring mooring space or berths in the water,

commercial fishing also requires onshore support facilities in fishing

harbors, such as: buyers and processors, cold s t orage, cargo hoists, vessel

9/haul- outs, repa i r yards, ice, waste disposal, water , and fuel supplies .-

In addition, facilities normally found at recreational marinas are useful and

necessary to commercial fishermen . These facilitie s i nclude showers, storage

lockers, parking, trash containers, and restrooms . Because the berthing,

haul-out s, hoists, and repair yard s must be partially in or over the Bay , they

are considered "fill" by the Commission. The remaining support facil1 ties can

and often are located on land.

Historically, the buyers, processors, and cold storage facilities have

been huilt on large docks, with mooring and off-loading fadli t ies around the

edge of the dock . Although these facilities can also be located on dry land,

a location over the water speeds up off-loading and minimizes the time the

fish are exposed to the elements, protec t ing the quality of the seafood.

Based on the cost of northern California's newest commercial fishing

harbor, Spud Point in Bodega Bay, which was completed in 1985 at a cost of

eight million dollars, a commercial fishing port costs about $33,000 per

berth. Spud Point Marina includes 244 boat berths, two service docks, a lift

dock, fuel station, water and electricity at the berths, showers, restrooms,

maintenance center, laundry facility, lighting, and parking . Providing fish

offloading, processing, and storage facilities would add to the cost .

Whi le the cost of any marina is dependent on size, location, and the

need for expensive facilities such as a breakwater, the Department of Boating

-9-

and Waterways estimates the lowest overall c.ost of a new recreational boat

berth is $20,000 ..!Q/

The Bay Area's Fishing Ports

The Bay Area's principal fishing ports are located in San Francisco,

Sausalito, and Oakland. The fishing ports in Sausalito and Oakland each

consist of one operators's offloading facility; Sea-Kin Sausalito and

Producer's Seafood in Oak.land . At Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, there

are about 15 independent commercial facilities, 111 each leasing space from

the Port of San Francisco. At all of t hese facilities, the fish are

off-loaded, cleaned and cut-up, then packed on ice for market distribution.

When not at sea, most of the .Bay Area fishing vessels are moored at one

of the three areas. Sea-Kand Producers, the two private facilities, allow

the boats from which they buy fish to moor free of charge. Because there are

so many boats at some times, the boats must "raft", that is tie up to each

other parallel to the dock, sometimes four and five deep. This practice

reduces the amount of berths needed at a commercial fishing facility. Usually

about 20 to 30 boats are moored in Sausalito, although up to 80 boats have

12/ 13/ .been moored there .- Ahout 30 boats are moored in Oakland- and another

115 are moored in San Francisco.

l. San Francisco . At San Francisco ' s Fisherman's Wharf, located east

of Aq uatic Park at the foot of Taylor St.reet, the fishermen and the buyers are

tenants of the Port of San Francisco . Although the Port recently raised berth

rentals , the $1 . 20 to $1 . 80 per foot rate is still much less t han $3 . 05 to

$3 . 60 per foot rental for a similarly sized berth at a recreational marina .

-10-

However, the existing San Francisco berths have no facilities for the tenants

except some storage. At San Francisco's new redevelopment agency recreational

14/marina, berth rentals will cost approximately $6.95 per foot per month.-

Most recreational marinas have safe and sturdy facilities, and provide

parking, storage, garbage, running water, electricity, restrooms, and other

facilities for lessees. In contrast, at Fisherman's Wharf, much of the

berthing is dilapidated , and there is little or no parking, no restrooms, and

little storage. In addition, lucrative tourist-oriented facilities that bring

in higher revenues to the Port than do the commercial fishermen have usurped

space that had been used to support fishing. The Port of San Francisco is

developing plans to renovate the berths and support commercial fishing with

15/icing faci l ities, storage, restrooms, showers, and other amenities. -

Four herring buyers use Pier 33 as an unloading area. The herring

are trucked to processing and freezing facilities in the Monterey Bay area and

then returned to Oakland for shipping to Japan.

A total of 18 .7 million pounds of fish valued at $5.7 million were

landed in San Francisco in 1984 . .!.§/

2. Sausalito. The Sea-K facility has been in Sausalito since 1975 and

since 1982 has occupied the pier between the Corps of Engineers Operations

Base and tbe Clipper Yacht Harbor. The City has adopted policies calling for

the protection and enhancement of the commercial fishing industry and is

currently studying the suitability of the Donlon Arquez property on the City's

northern i-laterfront for additional commercia l fishing facilities, Sea-K buys

chinook salmon, pacific herring, albacore tuna, Californi a halibut, and

Dungeness crab from both local fishermen and seasonal fishermen who come to

tbe Bay Area to fish for particular species .

-11-

About 2,759,000 pounds of fish worth $1 . 25 million were landed at

17/Sea-Kin 1984.-

3 . Oakland. Producers Seafood is located on the Oakland Estuary just

north of the Dennison Street Bridge adjacent to Coast Guard Island. The Port

of Oakland obtained a Commission permit in 1980 to develop a commercial

fishing facility on a vacant parcel of land near the Bridge. The project was

never built, Producers Seafood has no plans to expand, and the Port of Oakland

staff does not believe t hat Oakland will need a new commercial fishing

facility in the near future. Producers buy chinook salmon, swordfish,

albacore tuna, herring, and Dungeness crab from local and seasonal flee t s.

About 2,452,000 pounds of fish worth almos t two million dollars

18/were landed at Producers in 1984.-

The Threats to the Fishing Industry

Degradation of the natural environment has caused serious problems for

the commercial fishing industry. Some of these are continuing and t hreaten

the future of commercial fishing in the Bay Area .

I o the American, Sacramento, and San Joaquin Rivers, placement of

riprap , development of recreational and residential projects which create

sediment, dredging , and filling are removing spawning a r eas used by salmon,

striped bass, and other anadromous fish . Construction of Shasta Dam in 1944

eliminated half of t he salmon spawning habitat in t he Sacramento River

19/system.-

The diversion of upstream freshwater inflow adversely affects downstream

habitat. Poor water quali t y also affect s anadromous fish . California

- 12-

Department of Fish and Game studies of striped bass are finding increased

numbers of lesions on the fish, which are believed to be caused by toxics,

chemicals, sewage, and other pol l utants.

Fill, including riprap, and dredge pro jects along the shoreline of the

Bay can adversely impact commercial fishing by circulating sediment or

removing shall ow water, marsh, intertidal, or mudflat habitats used by

commercial species.

In the past, overfishing of certain species bas dramatically affected

other species. For example, overfishing of Bay shrimp and sardines may have

contributed to the decline of larger fish species, birds, and mammals that eat

these small creatures. Because herring now play an important role in the food

chain of Bay wildlife~ they are carefully monitored to ensure the population

is not decimated by overfishing.

Another threat to the commercial fishing industry is the pressure to

20/convert commercial fishing facilities into recreational facilities.-

Although the berthing facilities required for commercial fishing boats and

recreational boats are basically the same, space for recreational boats can be

rented at far higher rates. In commercial fishing, the berth fee is a

business expense, which so long as amount of fish landed remains stable ,

cannot be changed without affecting either the profit of t he commercial

fisherman or the price of his product. In contrast, the rate charged for a

recreational berth is related only to the amount the recreational boater is

mlling to pay to enjoy a relatively expensive leisure experience .

On the shoreline, land available for offloading and light process ing is

being converted to other uses. In San Francisco, Pier 45, currently used for

commercial fishing, is proposed for development as a hotel. In Sausalito, one

-13-

undeveloped site suitable for a commercial fishing facility is currently being

developed as recreational marina with water-oriented businesses on land . The

Port of Oakland, which holds a current Commission permit for a new commercial

fishing facility, proposes to develop recreational boat berths and office

buildings on the site.

In addition, in marinas where both recreational boats and commercial

fishing boats are berthed, there may be conflicts. Commercial fishing boats

are big, sometimes old, sometimes smelly, and they come and go at all hours.

Recreational boaters generally seem to prefer a cleaner, tidier, quieter area

than is typically associated with a commercial fishing port . Conflicts have

not been a major problem in the Bay Area, probably because few marinas mi x

commercial fishing boat and recreational boat berthing. However, recently

problems have resulted from the offloading of fish in the Richmond and

Berkeley marinas. Twenty boats, making up the Vietnamese Fishermen's

Association, had to relocate from the Richmond Marina to the Berkeley Mar ina

because of fishing acitivies . In Berkeley, they have been forbidden to

offload fish because these activities are felt to be incompatible with the

. 21/recreational use of the marina.-

Opportunities for Improving the Fishing Industry

To dramatically increase the productivity of the commercial fishing

industry in the Bay Area, either new high tech processing facilities or larger

and newer vessels would have to be added to the fishing fleet and new

offloading and mooring facilities to serve these larger vessels would have to

be built . These improvements would require an investment of capital in an

- 14-

industry that is currently plagued both by environmental factors that are

causing a decline in some important commercial species and by competition from

f oreign, government-subsidized fishermen . Yet without these improvements it

will be difficult fo r Bay Area fishermen to take full advantage of the 200

22/mile, federally designated fishery conservation zone .- According to some

experts, effective harvesting in this zone requires boats to be out of port

for weeks at a time and either have on-board handling and freezer storage or

work with a larger processing vessel . The boats needed for this work are 150

23/feet or larger and can cost ten million dol lars each.-

To be fioancially successful , a new on-shore processing facility would

require a steady flow fi sh. A Pacific Whiting processing facility, one of the

most high-volume, low value fisheries in the industry would require at least

24/100,000 pounds of fish a day . - The plant would need to operate a minimum

of 200 days per year, require at least two and a half acres of land, and cost

roughly t~o to three million dollars plus land acquisition costs . Such a

facility is proposed for location in Crescent City on the Northern California

coast and is expected to cost $6 . 4 IDillion and create about 200 jobs . Several

such processing plant s already exist in the Pacific Northwest along with

mooring and offloading facilities. New, larg,e fish processing facilities in

the Bay Area would have to compete with these existing facilities. Vacant

tuna canneries in s outhe rn California could also be rehabi l itated for this

purpose. New fish handliog facilities have recently been c-onstruc.ted in the

Monterey Bay area. These facilities are near landing and offloading

facilities and rel.a tively near to Bay Area shipping c nters .

An alternative to the traditional high bulK frozen fish processing

facility is the new concept of gaining large r profits from smaller quantities

-15-

of fish by increasing quality standards. For example, fish auctions increase

the availability of fisb . In addition, new onshore facilities should have the

25/flexibility to handle different species of fish in the same day. -

It does not appear cost-effective to develop large-scale new fishing

facilities in the Bay Area; however, renovation and expansion of the existing

facilities seems necessary in order for the commercial fishing industry to

survive, especially because many fishermen believe there are inadequate

26/physical accommodations and access to the market place.-

1. Fisherman's Wharf. "Fisherman's Wharf" is an area along the San

Francisco northern waterfront consisting of Fish Alley located along Jefferson

Street, Hyde Street Pier at the foot of Hyde Street, and Pier 45 at the foot

of Taylor Street. The fishing facilities in this historic fishing area a r e

old, dilapidated, and inadequate for a modern commercial fishing industry.

Fortunately, the Port of San Francisco is commi tted to improving the

facilities for commercial fishing . In addition, the Corps of Engineers has

begun construction of a new $10.6 million breakwater to protect t he area from

wave and tidal surge.

The Port of San Francisco's plan t o redevelop this area is critical

to the future of the Bay Area fishing industry for t hree reasons. First, this

fishing port has the best access to the local fishing grounds which lie

between the Golden Gate and the Farallones Islands. Second, the site is

naturally deep and needs little maintenance dredging . Finally, because the

area has been t he center of the Bay Area fishing industry since t he late

1800's there are more berths, greater off-loading capacity, and more handlers,

processors, and distributors t han at the other ports. Replacing t hese

facilities at another location would be extraordinarily expensive.

-16-

Efforts to capture more tourist dollars have brought many changes

to the Fisherman's Wharf area. Although tourism at Fisherman's Wharf

generates more revenue than does commercial fishing , some doubt exists t ha t

tourism would continue to flourish if retail shops completely displace

commercial fishing operations . For this reason, retailers in the Fisherman's

Wharf area generally support the Port's plans to improve t he facilities for

commercial fishermen at the Wharf.

The Port's plans for the Fisherman's Wharf area include renovating

the berthing, offloading, and handling areas and adding convenience facilities

sue~ as restrooms and showers . Hyde Street Pier would be rebuilt and expanded

to accommodate new facilities for off-loading, handling, storage, office,

transporat ioo, refrigeration, and public access. In addition, parking and

truck loading areas are critically needed in this area. The Port believes

that lt cannot complete the redevelopment of the area before 1989. The San

Francisco Waterfront Special Area PlanJ adopted by the Commission in 1975,

supports this enhancement and maintenance of comme rcial fleet mooring and

commercial fish handling and processing at the Hyde Street Pier and Fish Alley

areas.

2. Sausalito, Oakland, and Other Locations. Presently, the fish

off-loading facilities in the Bay Area are all controlled by firms that buy

fish. Therefore, fisbermen find it difficult to sell fish directly to the

public or to other wholesalers. In response to t his situation, some fishermen

are considering leasing and developing a site to provide mooring for

commercial fishing boats, a public off-loading facility, and a small fish

market open to t he public . Both Richmond and Oakland have shoreline land t hat

they could use for such a project.

-17-

The other smaller fishing "ports" identified in Department of Fish

and Game data are, in fact, statistics which indicate that fish are offl.oaded

at recreational marinas or other minor shoreline facilities. No major

processsing companies are located in these ports; the fish are sold to buyers

who transport them to other areas for processing.

The reestablishment of extensive commercial fishing in the Bay

itself would be necessary for other locations to become suitable for the

developmment of commercial fishing ports . Although other sites may be

physically suitable for new facilittes, their distance from ocean fishing

grounds and the high cost of developing all new facilities may make the

developroent of new commercial fishing ports less economical. A facility would

have to be within 30 to 45 minutes of travel time to the Golden Gate to be

27/useable by fisherman .-

3 . Fish Markets. Fish markets are commonly found in major fishing

centers in other areas of the United States and the world. In Europe and

Australia, wholesale fish auction houses are often associated with the wharf

and off-loading areas. Io Seattle and Vancouver, British CoLumbia, retai l

fish outlets are located on the waterfront as part of larger produce markets .

An auction house could be built at any of the tbree Bay Area fishing ports to

distribute the fish not covered by standing orders. A public retail fish

market appears to be most feasible in San Francisco where it would be

accessible to a large population of residents, buyers, and restaurants . This

type of market would improve the fishermen's ability to sell "extra" fish not

covered by contracts, would diminish wasting fish, some of which are thrown

away or dumped into the ocean, and would provide a public service and could

lead to more competitive pricing of fish for the consumer.

-18-

Government's Role in Commercial Fishing

1 . The Commission. The Commission can affect commercial fishing in

the San Francisco Bay Area in a number of ways, although other impacts on the

industry a~e largely beyond the Commission's control and influence . Any

additional use of the shoreline or new Bay fill for commercial fishing

facilities would require a Commission permit. Because a waterfront site is

required for off-loading fish, a commercial fishing harbor is a specialized

type of port operation. Furthermore, because a waterfront location for fish

processing facilities allows a higher quality of f~esh fish to be marketed,

the processing operation is a water-related industry . Therefore, the

Commission can authorize some Bay fill to accommodate commercial fishing

operations as a port facility and a water-related industry activity.

Similarly, the Commission can designate commercial fishing ports on the Bay

Plan Maps as either water-related industries or ports to give priority to

waterfront commercial fishing facilities and to protect existing fishing ports

from conversion to other uses. Finally, the Commission can adopt Bay Plan

policies to guide its consideration of proposals for new or expanded

commercial fishing facilities and for the use of existing fishing ports. The

Commission can also continue its position regarding protection of water

quality in the Bay and in upstream waters and can continue to protect and

enhance marshes and mudflats around the Bay which serve as juvenile fish

nursery habitat.

-19-

Existing Commission policies include:

1. Bay Plan Map No. 4 includes a suggestion which sta.J:es:

"Brooklyn Basin: Expand commercial fishing and recreation

facilities."

2. Bay Plan Map No. 10 includes a po icy which states: "San

Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan No. 1: See special

area plan for detailed planning guidelines for the shoreline

between the east side of the Hyde Street Pier and the south

side of India Basin."

The San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan (1975) states, in

part:

"Hyde Street Pier

The reconstruction or improvement of the east side of the Hyde

Street Pier for fish processing should be permitted. It need

not be rebuilt to its present configuration, but any new fill

should be the minimum necessary."

"Fish Alley

Fish Alley facilities should be improved and expanded to serve

the commerical fishing fleet and to maintain and enhance the

area as a center for commercial fishing uses. Improved

berthing, docking and related activities for commercial

fishing boats, including necessary sanitation facilities,

should be permitted.

A breakwater between the Hyde Street Pier and Pier 45 should

be permitted if a breakwater will: (a) protect commerical

fishing boats moored in Fish Alley from damage caused by wave

-20-

action and (b) significantly enhance the Fish Alley area as a

center for commercial fishing activities."

Although the Commission can take positive steps to protect

commercial fishing in t he Bay Area, generally the Commission cannot regulate

diversions from upstream inflows, the taking of fish, or the location of

inland commercial fishing activities. The Commission cannot fund development

or enhancement of commercial fishing facilities , These and other impacts are

under the cont rol of l ocal, other state, and federal agencies, And lastly,

the Commission cannot affect market demand or prices or predict or mitigate

catastrophic natural phenomenon, such as "El Nino," which can devastate the

fisher ies and the fishermen's incomes.

2. California Department of Fish and Game. The Department of Fish and

Game (DFG) has primary responsibility for regulating the use of the comme rcial

fi shing resource within California. DFG also carries out scientific studies

to determine the amount, size, and age of fish of different species;

establishes the seasons for hErvesting those fish vulnerable to overfishing;

polices collection of fish as they are unloaded in ports; breeds, raises, and

releases fish to enhance the natural populat i on; comments on proposed projects

that might affect spawning and juvenile fish habita t; carries out habitat

enhancement projects; and through its authority to license commercial

fishermen and boats, can limit t he numbers of boats fishing for species that

are vulnerable to overharvesting.

DFG uses a variety of techniques to monitor the health of fish

populations. For example 1 tiny metal tags are planted on the bodies of

juvenile salmon that are raised in hatcheries. DFG personnel recover these

tags when the fish are caught as adults and are un loaded in port. In

-21-

addition, fishermen and buyers must report their catches and purchases to the

DFG. Although the accuracy of thls system depends on t he cooperation of t he

buyers and fishermen, the data collect ed are useful as a rough estimate of the

catch .

Certain fish can be harvested only during limited seasons; others

are not available for commercial fishing at all . Stri ped bass have not been

caught commercially since 1935, largely to prot ec t the population for

recreational anglers . Salmon , herring, and crab are t he big seasonal catches

in the Bay Area . Salmon season runs from May to October, herring season runs

from December t o March , and dungeness crab season runs from November to June .

These limited seasons help ensure adequate spawning takes place to continue

t he species population. The overall tonnage of t he seasonal catch for t hese

species i s also l imited, and the tonnage limitations are reviewed annually .

DFG inspects catcb~s offloaded in ports and works t o arrest and

prosecute persons who fish out of season. In the Bay Area, one warden is

responsible for overseeing all of the commercial fishing act ivities in San

Francisco and one is assigned t o Oakland . Other areas have no permanent DFG

staff.

DFG operates several ha t cheries in the state. Host of t he

hat cheries raise trout for freshwater, rec r eational release and salmon, whi ch

are released and swim to the ocean for several years growth. In 1984, DFG

raised and released over 25 million chinook, steelhead, and coho at six DFG

hatcherl es . A total of 48 . 5 million fish were raised and released statewide

in 1984.

DFG staff reviews and comments on environmental documents for

projects that might impact fisheries habitat . For example, proposals to

-22-

dredge or place fill in shallow wate r portions of the Bay might adversely

impact spawning and juvenile fish feeding areas in the Bay. The DFG staff

also suggests project changes to reduce adverse environmental impacts.

3. Other Agencies. In addition to the DFG's regulation of fish and

the commercial fishing industry, the state Department of Health Services and

the local departments of health superv i s e and inspect the facilities where t he

fish are cleaned, filleted, iced, and packed for distribution . The purpose of

these inspections is to ensure clean and sanita ry conditions for the

preparation of the fish for human consumption.

The State Coastal Conservancy js involved in several commercial

fishing projects in California , including planning, economic feasibility

analysis 1 and implementation of Port of San Franci sco projects at Pier 45;

construction of a fish processing facility in Crescent City; and planning and

constructing of fishing boat berths at Spud Point in Sonoma County. In 1984,

the Conservancy also conducted a comprehensive analysis of the need for

fishing boat berthing in California and developed recommenda tions for

improving the State's support for commercial fishing .

Within the federal government, the National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) has primary responsibility for fishery programs. NMFS has

jurisdiction over the harvesting of fish that pass between states, fish

cap tured off foreign lands, marine mammals, species regulated by Congress, and

the fishery conservation zone, which extends 200 miles seaward of the three

mile coastal zone that is part of each state. In the Bay Area, NMFS regulates

salmon and groundfish, for which it establishes size limits, quotas, and

seasons. NMFS also bas authority over seafood and shellfish shipped between

states.

-23-

For each of the fisheries regulated by NMFS, a ma nagement plan is

prepared by a regional fishery management council, for review and approval by

the Secretary of Commerce. The Pacific Fishery Management Council, one of the

eight regi,onal fishery management councils, oversees development of management

plans for tbe waters more than three miles off California, Oregon, and

Washington, The 13 voting members include representatives of the state fi sh

and game agencies and from NMFS, and eight members appointed by the Secretary

of Commerce, The council also includes representatives from Idaho. Five

non-voting members represent the Governor of Alaska, U. S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Coast Guard, DepartIDent of State, and Pacific Marine Fisheries

Commission . This Council prepares management plans for the species within its

area of jurisdiction and prepares federal regulations to carry out the plan,

Bay Area commercial fishermen operate under the Pacific Coast Groundfish Plan

which covers Lingcod, Pacific whiting, Sablefish, Pacific Ocean perch, other

Rockfish, Pink shrimp, Spot and Ridgeback prawns, and Dover, English and

Petrale sole.28/-

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) does not regulate

commercial fisheries; its work is limited to recreational fishing species.

4. Other Countries. The United States government is involved in

managing the fisheries resources, but is not actively involved in the

development of technology, research, and direct market price controls as found

in other nations. In the USSR, all the fishing vessels are government owned

and the government is investing in development of groundfisb processing

facilities. Canada actively supports prices to make commercial fishing a

lucrative industry for Canadians. Canada is also developing a research and

testing facility for the fishing industry in Halifax. Norway and Denmark each

-24-

have active research facilities . In addition, Norway is involved in salmon

aquaculture and controls production as part of a worldwide program to manage

the market in Norwegian salmon . Japan has some of the most advanced

government programs based on the extensive nationwide planning for the

commercial fishing industry that was carried out in the 1960's and early

1970's . The Japanese government developed zoning to set aside areas for

fishing, for processing, for aquaculture, and for recreation, to eliminate

conflicts between uses . Japan now produces a large percentage of its seafood

through mariculture .

Notes

1. Department of Fish and Game data, Long Beach

2. Department of Fish and Game data, Long Beach

3. BCDC Staff Phone Survey, April 1-5, 1985

4. Personal Comment, Patrick J. Flanagan, Standard Fisheries Corp .

5. Personal Comment, Denise Turner, wharfinger, Port of San Francisco

6, Based on Association of Bay Area Governments dat a for 1982, Information

and Analysis Section

7 . King, Dennis M, and Kenneth L. Shellhammer, The California Interindustry

Fisheries Model: An Economic Impact Calculator for California Fisheries,

Vol. I . , p . 14

8. Fisheries Development Associates, Fisherman ' s Wharf : A Proposal for

Development, 1985, p. 6

9 . State Coastal Conservancy, Commercial Fishing Facilities in California

1984, p .11

-25-

10. Personal comment, William Curry, staff, Department of Boating and

Waterways , March 26, 1986

11. Personal Comment, Patrick J . Flanagan, Standard Fisher ies Corp .

12. Personal Comment, Joe Garofalo, Sea-K Fish Co.

13. Personal Comment, Stephanie Thorton, Producers Seafood

14. San Francisco Chronicle, May 13, 1985

15. Port of San Francisco, Request for Proposal, April 24, 1985

16 . Department of Fish and Game data, Long Beach

17. Department of Fish and Game data, Long Beach

18. Department of Fish and Game data, Long Beach

19. Nichols et.al., "The Modification of an Est uary" in Science, February,

1986

20. State Coastal Conservancy, Commercial Fishing Facilities in California,

1984, p . 61

21. Personal Comment, Connie Ryan, Sea Grant

22. Port of Oakland, Commercial Fisheries Development Study, 1981 , p.31

23. Personal comment, Zeke Grader, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen ' s

Associations, Inc .

24 . State Coastal Conservancy, Staff Analysis of Crescent City Pacific

Whiting Processing Plant, 1985

25. Personal comment, Patrick J. Flanagan, Standard Fisheries Corp .

26. Letter of Robert E. Barton, San Francisco Bay Fishermens ' Association,

February 19, 1986

27. Letter of Robert E. Barton, San Francisco Bay Fishermens' Association,

February 19, 1986

28 . Personal Comment , Henry Wendler, Pacific Fishery Management Council ,

March 21, 1986

-26-

PART II: COMMERCIAL SHELLFISHING

Overview of Shellfish Harvesting in the Bay

Large numbers of shellfish have inhabited the Bay for hundreds of

years , The native oyster (Ostrea lurida) mussel (Mytilus edulis), and

bent-nose clam (Macoma nasuta) were staples in the diet of native

1/Californians .- Around 1850, commercial cultivation of oysters began .

Immature Eastern oysters (Ostrea virginica) and later Japanese oysters (Ostrea

gigas) were imported and "planted" in fenced beds . Although these oysters

grew larger tbau the native species, juveniles had to be imported continuously

because the exotic species could not reproduce in the cool Bay waters . Clams

that were inadvertaotly imported with these oysters have reproduced and now

2/thrive in the Bay.- The soft shell clam (Mya arenaria) and the Japanese

littleneck ot cockle (Tapes japonica) are now the primary species in Bay

shellfish beds .~/

Shellfish beds of varying sizes exist along the shoreline of the Central

and South Bays . The presence of a shellfish bed depends on a number of

factors, including bottom conditions, food supply, and water salinity. The

4/best bottom condition is rocky cobble with mud and shell mix .- Precise

figures on the number of shellfish in the Bay are not available. Appendix C

includes 1977 and 1981 estimates of the Japanese littleneck and softshell clam

populations over the last 20 years and a map of the bed locations.

Because of water quality problems, since the 1930s shellfish harvesting

in San Francisco Bay has been limited to recreational collecting.

-27-

Recreational harvesting is regulated by the California Department of Fish and

Game, which issues fishing licenses, sets daily harvest limits for each

species, and establishes the minimum sizes that can be collected. The

California Department of Health Services is responsible for determining when

consumption of shellfish can be hazardous to the public health. Although the

Department of Health Services suspects t hat many of the shellfish collected

from the Day may be contaminated, overall the Department does not believe the

consumpt~on of Bay shellfish poses a "severe health hazard." 1I

Furthermore, since 1982 the Department has "sanctioned the consumption of

shellfish from the shellfish beds" by recreational harvesters~/ during

summers only along the San Mateo County shoreline between Coyote Point Yacht

Harbor and Ryder Park. This has been the first sanctioned recreational

shellfish harvest i ng in the Bay si nce t he 1930s. Recreational harvesting is

not limited t o these officially opened areas, but instead takes place

t h roughout the Bay.

To satisfy the Bay Area's large demand, shellfish must be imported from

other coastal areas in the U.S . and abroad. Some oysters are raised on

California's ocean shoreline. Recent research bas shown t he shellfi sh can be

grown in the Bay, but Bay shellfish operations must overcome problems

associated with water quality to become commercially successful.

To reestablish commercial shellfish operations, growing waters would

have to be certified to be of suitable quality, a testing program initiated,

and, to ensure public health, a depuration (or cleansing) process developed.

Without a depuration facility, public health and safety cannot be guaranteed

because unexpected incidents, such as sewage treatment plant malfunctions,

overflows , or toxic spills, can quickly impact shellfish beds. Depuration is

-28-

consistently effective in reducing bacteria (such as fecal coliform), although

depuration experiments have not proven depuration effective in eliminating

viruses (such as hepatitis A); trace metals (such as mercury), or

hydrocarbons, One of the most effective ways of destroying microbial

contamination is cooking at high heat, e . g . deep frying . A recent study in

the New England Journal of Medicine linked gastrointestinal illness in New

York to the consumption of raw oysters and clams and lightly steamed clams.7/-

The Threats to Shellfish Harvesting

Water quality 1s a key element in commercial shellfish harvesting.

Under the voluntary National Shellfish Sanitation Program, the St ate's water

is divided into four classifications. They are:

1 . Approved areas where the health authority has, as a result of a sanitary

survey, reliable assurance that, all year round, sewage from nearest

sources will not reach the area in concentrations to constitute a public

health hazard. (No Bay waters fall into this category.)

2. Conditionally approved areas where information from a sanitary survey

has indicated that the discharge from a nearby communlty waste treatment

plant adversely effects the quality of the water in the area and the

area would have been classified as prohibited had treatment not been

provided. The water quality requirements for an .approved area are met

at all periods when the area is a~proved as a source of shellfish for

direct marketing.

3. Restricted areas where a sanitary survey ha~ revealed a limited degree

of pollution which makes it unsafe to harvest shellfish for direct

-29-

marketing. Shellfish from this area may be marketed after "relaying" in

an approved are.a under regulat.ioos set by the state certifying agency.

(Most Bay waters are either conditionally approved or restricted.)

4. Prohibited areas where sanitary surveys have indicated the area is

receiving pathogenic microorganisms from known sources of

contamination. The median coliform MPN (most probable number) of the

waters exceeds 700 per 100 ml or more than 10 percent of t he samples

have a coliform MPN in excess of 2300 per 100 ml. (Any areas not in a

testing program are designated "prohibited".)

In Sao Mateo County where collection in t he summer has been approved,

the Bay water is tested weekly by the County Health Department, and the clam

meat is tested every two weeks to ensure compliance with the following

standards for total coliform bacteria and fecal coliform bacteria:~/

TOTAL COLIFORM FECAL COLIFORM

Five median

sample 70 MPN /100 ml 14 MPN/100 ml

1ax-imum allowed 230 MPN/100 ml in 90 percent of samples

46 MPN/100 tnl in 90 percent of samples

Other pollutants which can be ingested through shellfish consumption and

can adversely impact human health include viruses; marine biotorlcs such as

paralytic shellfish poisoning; trace metals such as cadmium, chromium, copper,

lead, mercury, and zinc; arsenic; chlorinated hydrocarbons; petroleum

hydrocarbons; and radionuclides.~/

-30-

Future Opportuoi ties for Shellfish Harvesting

Due to improvements in water quality in parts of the Bay, commercial

shellfish operations may soon reappear . Recently the Department of Fish and

10/ Game carried out oyster culture experiments.- }lesh bags containing

juvenile Eastern and Pacific oysters were tied to racks placed on mudflats in

San Leandro, San Mateo, and Redwood City. Within a year about 90 percent of

the oysters reached cocktail (small) or small half shell (medium) size.

However, considerable labor was required to maintain the racks and remo ve

algae from the bags.

DFG research a l so shows that stake culture can be used to grow Pacific

oysters to half shel.l (medi um) size. Stake culture involves attaching

juvenile shellfish to a pole sunk into the Bay bottom. Growth is faster than

bag growth t he stakes can be placed close together, and there is virtually no

maintenance. Yield per unit area for stake culture could be double or more

than that of bag culture. Likely areas for stake cultivation include Anza

Lagoon in Burlingame, San Mateo, San Leandro, and Point Isabel in Richmond.

In 1984 the Morgan Oyster Company completed a three-year study at 100

sites along the East, South, and West Bay shorelines, south of Burlingame and

Hayward. Immature oysters and clams were placed in mesh bags attached to

racks, and clams were buried in the Bay bottom. At each of the sites growth

rates were excellent . As a result of these experiments the Company is

interested in commercially raising shellfish in the South Bay, To accomplish

this, the firm proposes to lease approximately 3)000 acres of underwater

state-owned lands, and has developed an aquaculture agreement with Depa rtment

-31-

of Fish and Game, This project will begin with five acres of racks and a five

year research and development lease. The lease can be extended for up to 25

years.

Shellfish grown in the Bay would have to go through depuratioo, or

ll/cleansing, before they could be marketed for human consumption.- In one

method, shellfish could be transported to another area, such as Tamales Bay,

£or depuration . This method will probably be used by the Morgan Oyster

Company for the first few years. The depuratioo process would take severaJ

weeks and up to 20 percent of the oysters may he lost in transit through

l2/breakage.- Another depuration method involves the construction of a

depuration plant made up of large, shoreline tanks through which disinfected

water flows. A period of only 48-72 hours may be enough to purify shell f ish

13/in such tanks.- One demonstration project cleansed San Francisco

14/littleneck clams in six hours .- Such plants have been used in Europe and

Japan for up to 60 years; however, there are few in the United States. The

Morgan Oyster Company may build such a plant in the future to speed up

marketing and to minimize losses due to transportation. Large tanks, a

minimum of 10' x 25' x 3', would be enclosed in a wa-rehouse similar in size to

a fish of f-loading facility or other small, light industrial facility.

The Commission's Role in Shellfish Harvesting

Bay Plan policies currently call for public access to the shoreline for

recreational harvesting of shellfish and several of the Bay Plan Maps identify

areas along the shoreline with shellfish harvesting opportunities, The Bay

Plan Map notes identify and promote public access to the shellfish beds.

-32-

If commercial shellfish operations return to the Bay, support facilities

would be needed for docking, offloading, warehouses, offices, and truck

parking . These facilities would require a shoreline location near the

shellfish beds, adjacent to water of adequate depth, and near transportation

routes. Some dredging may be needed to prepare an offloading area, although

existing dock or port facilities may be appropriate as long as the shellfish

harvesting use does not preempt deep-water access sites needed for maritime

activities .

When the Commission reviews a permit application for shellfish culture,

it would have to address any use conflicts in the proposed area. Cultivation

will entail the placement of stakes or metal racks which may interfere with

small craft boating, other water sports, or commercial herring fishing. The

culture structures, about three to four feet above the bottom, and stakes, up

to two feet above the bottom, may be visible at certain tidal levels which

could impact views of the Bay from the shoreline. Recent research by the

Morgan Oyster Company indicates that oysters that are continually submerged

151grow more quickly than oysters in the intertidal zone . Therefore,

placing racks where they are submerged all the time would eliminate view

impacts and improve oyster growth, Clearly marking culture areas with buoys,

siting in areas not used for fishing, and/or reserving adequate water areas

for launching and maneuvering small boats would lessen impacts on those uses

and on commercial fishing. Because commercial shellfish operations take place

in relatively shallow water areas, they would not interfere with charted

navigation channels in the Bay,

As with every permit application, the environmental impacts of each

specific project proposal would have to be reviewed in depth prior to issuing

- 33-

.

a permit. Any impacts on sedimentation, water circulation, and wildlife would

have to be addressed in light of a specific project .

Notes

1. Jones and Stokes, San Francisco Bay Shellfish, p. 4

2. Skinner, p. 106

3. McAllister, p. ii

4. McAllister, p. 10

5. Regional Water Quality Control Board, January 1983, p. 5

6. Regional Water Quality Control Board, January 1983, p. 5

7. San Francisco Chronicle, March 13, 1986

8. San Francisco Chronicle, July 22, 1985

9. Jones and Stokes, pp. 28-76

10. McAllister, p. 82

11. Jones and Stokes, pp. 79-84

12. Jones and Stokes, p. 82

13. Jones and Stokes, p. 82

14. Jones and Stokes, p. 82

15. Reports submitted as a condition of BCDC Permit No. MB0-88

-34-

PART IH: MARICULTURE

Overview of Mariculture

Aquaculture is the cultivation of plants or animals in water under

controlled conditions. Mariculture is aquaculture carried out with marine

species in sea water. Both aquaculture and mariculture are aKin to farmipg in

that an area is reserved for the use, the plant or ani.mal i s "seeded" in that

area, and many species must be fed to survive.

Mariculture has the potentia l for making important contributions to

1/society.- It can increase the food supply (Japan, for example, is

producing ten percent of its fish supply through aquaculture). Fisheries can

be preserved by consuming "ranched" stock so that the wild stock can be

pro tected from depletion. Mariculture contributes to environmental quality;

it is a clean industry and can, in some instances, be used to supply tertiary

treatment to sewage. As a source of seed animals to restock natural

populations, mariculture can be part of natural resource enhancement

programs. Finally, mariculture offers employment opportunities and economic

growth in the seafood industry.

The process closest to mariculture in the Bay is the barvestiog of small

brine shrimp from the Leslie Salt Company's salt ponds in the South Bay.

Brine shrimp, which are native to the Bay, are swept into the salt ponds when

they are filled with Bay water. Between one-half and three quarters of a

million pounds of these tiny c reatures are harvested each year - and

3/

2/

marketed largely as pet fish food.-

-35-

Moder-n mariculture is currently focused on a few limited species, and

much of the work is at the experimental, research level. A great deal of

research is necessary to understand the reproduction process, feeding, and

other functional aspects of a species before there ls adequate confidence to

make an investment in a mariculture project. Work in California is focused on

five species: (1) oysters, (2) abalone, (3) anadromous fish, (4) lobster, and

(5) 4/

seaweed.-

The oyster industry is currently the most successf ul mariculture

program. Oysters are raised in Humboldt Bay, Drakes Estero, Tamales Bay, and

Morro Bay in two ways: seed or baby oysters are placed directly on the bottom

of the bays, or they are attached to racks placed in the bays.

Abalone is being experimentally raised in the Santa Barbara area.

Abalone can be raised onshore in tanks, offshore in natural or artificial

habitats, or hatched onshore and raised offshore.

Salmon and other anadromous fish spawn, spend their early lives in fresh

water, and their adult lives in the open ocean. They are raised and released

into the ocean with the hope they will return in two to three years to the

area wh.ere they we.re spawned. Tbe returning adu l ts can then be easily

harvested. Farming of anadrowous fi ,sh is closely regulated; special

legislation must be passed to approve a project site. One firm, the Silver

King Oceanic Farms, has approval for three sites, Waddell Creek and Davenport

Landing Creek in Santa Cruz. County, and Elk Creek in Mendocino County.

In a separate program, pen rearing of salmon has beeo carried out at the

National Marine Fisheries Tiburon Facility since 1974. Currently, the program

is carried on by Tyee, a private club, The pen rearing program includes

bringing fiogerlings from a hatchery and placing them in nets suspended from

-36-

f loating walkways. The fish are kept at the facility for about five months

and then released. The goal of the program is to ingrain the salmon with a

home in the Bay Area, thus eventually creating a salmon sport fishery inside

the Bay. Between 20,000 and l00,000 fingerllngs have been pen reared each

year in this program. It is too early to reach any conclusion regarding the

long-term success of t his experiment.

The American lobster is the only crustacean being cultivated in

California . Preliminary reports say ''domestication of the American lobstei:: is

as hard as trying to housebreak a rhinocerous''-~/; they are ill-tempered,

cannibalistic, slow growing, and die easily .

The last area of interest is seaweed culture . There are many different

types, some of which may be appropriate for San Francisco Bay. In Southern

California, kelp is being studied to discover if the plant biomass can

economically be converted to energy. If so, interest in seaweed cultivation

may increase. In some experiments, tanks of microscopic seaweed have been

grown to feed oysters; other tanks of sea~eed cleanse the wastewater from the

oyster tanks. Because such food material may be needed for oysters held in an

onshore depuration tank, this type of system may have applicability in the Bay.

Although mariculture seems to have a great deal of potential,

establishing profitable operations has proven difficult. As noted, extensive

research is essential before a species can be raised in a mariculture

operation. Government support for such research has declined, and it i s

difficult to readily apply research on one species to another species.

Therefore, most s1.1ccessful aquaculture efforts invblve hearty species 11ke

catfish, or species that have a long history of cultivation , like clams and

oysters. Considerable capital investment is also necessary to initiate a

-37-

mariculture operation. Without a success story to at tract investoTs, it is

difficult for entrepreneurs to raise the necessary venture capital. For this

reason, many of the successful aquaculture ventures occur in foreign countries

which provide considerable subsidies to the operators or concentrate on

species with a high unit cost, like lobsters.

Mariculture can conflict with public uses of coastal waters, such as

boating and swimming. It may be difficult for mariculture proponents to

convince public officials that areas currently used for recreation or other

public purposes should be allocated to mariculture, especially since the

industry has had such a l imited success in either producing significant

amounts of food or making a large economi c impact . For this reason, the

industry has often faced what it perceives to be unreasonable government

regulation..

The Opportunities for Mariculture iu the Bay

Of the species currently under study for mariculture, oysters and brine

shrimp appear to be the most likely candidates for mariculture in San

Francisco Bay in the near ~1ture. Neither abalone nor the seaweed on which it

feeds are native to the Bay. Therefore, problems can be expected in trying to

raise them in the Bay. Although many anadroroous fish pass through the Bay on

their way to up river spawning areas, sites for spawning projects are very

rare and it is unlikely any appropriate site exists within the Bay itself.

Nor does the American lobster appear to be a candidate for San Francisco Bay

mariculture.

-38-

Sea Grant researchers cultivated the seaweed Laminaria on racks which

they floated i n San Francisco Bay and attempted to induce herring to lay their

eggs on the Laminaria. The researchers released a too of herring eggs near

the seaweed in 1984 in hope that herring will "home", or return to their place

of hatching to lay their eggs as adults. Herring eggs currently sell for up

to $10 a pound in Japan.

If mariculture is developed in the Bay Area, it would likely be proposed

for location in one of three types of areas: (1) shallow areas of the Bay,

( 2) low-lying, f l at seasonal wetlands, and (3) existing ponds .

Creation of ponds in the Bay would entail building new dikes in the Bay

and installing water control structures. The reduction in the size of the

open Bay would result in dimunition of the t i dal prism and could adversely

impact marsh, mudflat, and inte·rtidal habitats .

Proposals to develop new ponds on the shoreline would probably focus on

the large expanses of low-lying flat lands, such as diked historic baylands,

lands diked off from tidal action of the Bay in the past, or managed wetlands

which are flooded in winter for duck clubs. These lands a r e seasonally wet

and provide habitat for Bay-related waterfowl , shorebirds, raptors, and other

animals and birds . These lands are very vulnerable to filling and

development. Conversion to mariculture use would eliminate the seasonal

wetland values to Bay wildlife, but would keep the lands unfilled, increase

water surface area, and provide habitat for aquatic wildli f e and

water-oriented birds.

Some of the t housands of acres of existing salt ponds could be converted

to mariculture use i f no longer needed for salt production. The change of use

would have little effect on the Bay ecosystem; the dikes and water control

-39-

systems are in place and water surface areas would be retained . The brine

shrimp is the most likely candidate for cultivation in the sal t ponds because

it thrives in shallow, warm water with high salinity levels. Most other high

salinity-tolerant species are tropical and would require higher year- round

water temperatures than are found in the Bay Area . Brine shrimp would also be

a good mariculture candidate because it is used as food for other species

raised in mariculture . Thus~ the brine shrimp market would grow as

mariculture generally grows. Other species of shrimp such as the Penaeid

shrimp or the Giant Asiatic prawn are also possible candidates for cultivation

in the salt ponds .

The Department of Fish and Game believes that some ponds could continue

to be used to raise brine shrimp . Other ponds have accumulated extensive

salts in the soil. Prior to any specific proposal, the DFG's Marine Culture

Laboratory recommends a one or two year background study of the ponds to log

dissolved oxygen, salinity, and water temperature in all four seasons. With

this information, either DFG or private mariculturists could determine more

precisely which species could be raised here.

In addition, be fore a definite project is approved, the impacts on the

existing wildlife users of the salt ponds would need to be studied. The salt

ponds curre.ntly provide important resting areas for migratory waterfowl and

other birds.

Government's Role in Mariculture

To promote mariculture in the State, in the last five years the State of

California has amended its laws, clarified its regulations, and simplified the

-40-

licensing procedures. The state Legislature has also adopted a resolution

supporting mariculture/aquaculture.

Within the existing regulatory framework, new permits can be processed

simply; processes and areas of authority have been centralized in the

Department of Fish and Game. The most recent aquaculture application

handbook, updated in August, 1985, includes reference materials, a list of

species which could be raised, state codes, and application forms. This

handbook covers shellfish, fish, and seaweed raising.

The Commission's Role

Existing Bay Plan policies address the development of mariculture in the

Bay, in salt ponds, and in managed wetlands and diked historic bayland~.

While the Commission could legally authorize fill for new levees in the

Bay to create new ponds for mariculture, Bay Plan policies call for

maintaining and enlarging the Bay surface area and tidal prism to promote

water circulation and aquatic habitat and call for protection of marshes and

mudflats. Because construction of levees for new ponds in the Bay would

restrict tidal circulation and impact existing intertidal habitat areas, it

would be difficult for the Commission to approve the creati on of mariculture

ponds within the Bay.

Existing Bay Pl an policies allow filling of portions of salt ponds if

they are no longer needed for salt production. Conversion of these ponds to

mariculture would reta i n the water surf ace areas and tidal circulation in the

ponds. Retention of the ponds would protect the waterfowl habitat values of

the ponds. Mariculture use would protect the poss i bility of future

-41-

re s toration to full tidal action and would allow pond oW'llers an alternative,

economic use of these lands,

Changes of use in the salt ponds and physical work at the ponds, such as

repair of levees and of water-control facilities, would requ i re Commission

permits . In addition, use of tbe shoreline for mariculture support faci l ities

would require Commission approval.

Managed wetlands, used in winter by duck clubs, and diked historic

baylands , low- lying lands inundated by winter run-off, have seasonal values as

wetlands. Current Commission policies would allow filling and development of

these areas if they cannot be kept in their current use and cannot be

purchased by the publ ic and restored to tidal action. Commission policies

place highest priority on restoring these lands to tidal action, where

feasible. A possible alternative, if tidal restoration is not possible, would

be to use these areas for mariculture ponds. Creation of ponds in these lands

would enlarge water surface area and provide aqautic habitat. To an extent,

ponds would increase tidal circulation and flus hing. Mariculture would allow

an economic use of these l a nds . However, in some cases, inundating these

areas would destroy valuable wildlife habitat . Therefore, managed wetlands

should be used for rnaric ulture only if this would be the sole alternative to

filling the area.

-42-

Notes

l . Personal comment, Henry Alexander, Leslie Salt Co . , May 1, 1985

2. Personal comment, Bill Smith, San Francisco Bay Brands , March 27, l986

3 . Bowden, 1981, pp . 4-5

4. Bowden, 1981, pp . 6-14

5 . Bowden, 1981, p . 13

-43-

' CONCLUSIONS

To maintain existing and promote £uture commercial fishing in the Bay

Area, the Commission should incorporate new findings and policies into the Bay

Plan. T~ese findings and policies should be in a new section of the Plan and

should supplement the existing Bay Plan and San Franciscio Waterfront Special

Area Plan provisions regarding commercial fishing.

Recommended new Bay Plan findings and policies regarding commercial

fishing include :

Findings

a. The construction and use of commercial fishing facilities are

consistent with state and federal policies promoting public trust

and water-oriented uses of tbe state's waters.

b. Existing commercial fishing facilitie s in the Sao Francisco Bay

Area are centered principally in three areas: the Fisherman's Wharf

area of San Francisco, north of Dennison Street Bridge in Oakland,

and south of the Corps of Engineers Operations Base in Sau~alito.

Facilities at each location include boat docking and mooring and

fish unloading, handling, cleaning, f1Jleting, and distribution

facilities. There are no public fish markets at these facilities .

c. Commercial fishing continues to be a valuable part of the Bay Area

economy and culture. The commercial fishing industry provides

fresh fish for area area residents and restaurants and generates

primary and secondary economic benefits to the state.

Additionally, because visitors are attracted by commercial fi s hing

-45-

activities, the industry is an important part of the Bay Area's

multi-billion dollar tourist industry.

d. Because of the relatively low direct economic return and the

character of commercial fishing operations, there is pressure to

convert fishing boat berths to recreational boat berths and to

replace commercial fishing facilities with retail, commercial,

recreational, and other uses.

e. If th~ existing facilities are protected, it is not necessary to

reserve shoreline areas for commercial fishing.

f. Although clam and native oyster beds are located throughout the Bay

Area, shellfish harvesting is currently limited to recreational

harvesting due primarily to Bay water quality problems.

g, If and when not needed for salt production, salt ponds may have

continued commercial value for mariculture operations. Managed

wetlands and diked historic baylands are low-lying seasonal

wetlands which could be appropriate sites for construction of

mariculture ponds.

Policies

1. Commercial fishing facilities are water-oriented uses (port use and

water-related industry) for which the Commission can allow some Bay

fill subject to fill policies contained in the McAteer-Petris Act

and elsewhere in the Bay Plan.

2. Modernization of existing commercial fishing facilities and

construction of new commercial fishing boat berthing, fish

off-loading, and fish handling facilities on fill may be permitted

at appropriate sites with access to fishing grounds and to land

-46-

transportation routes, i f no alternative upland locations are

feasible . Support facilities for t he res iden t fleet and transient

fishing vessel crew use, such as restrooms, parki ng , showers,

storage facilities, and public fish markets should be provided,

and, where feasible, loca ted oo land .

3. Existing commercial fishing mooring areas, berths, and onshore

facilities should not be displaced or removed unless adequate oew

facilities are provided or the Commission determines that adequate

facilities of the same or better quality are available.

4. New cowmercial fishing facilities should be approved at any

suitable area on the shoreline, preferably witb good land

transportation and space for fish handling and directly related

ancillary activities. Commercial fishing boats do not need deep

water to dock and offload cargo.

5. If commercial shellfish harvesting is reactivated in the Bay Area,

handling aod depuratioo facilities should be allowed only on land.

Commercial shellfish harvesting facilities aod activities should

not interfere unduly with recreational uses of San Francisco Bay.

New Bay projects should not destroy or otherwise adversely impact

existing shellfish beds.

6. Where consistent with t he protection of fish and wildlife,

mariculture operations should be permitted in salt ponds that are

no longer needed for salt production.

7. Maricul ture ponds should be permi t ed in managed wetlands or diked

historic baylands which cannot be retained in their existing uses.

-47-

In addition the Commission should revise the Bay Plan findings and

policies on Salt Ponds and Other Managed Wetlands by adding the following new

finding:

h, Salt ponds are currently used to raise and harvest between one-hal f

and three-quarters of a million pounds of brine shrimp per year and

have commercial value for mariculture operations.

The Commission should add the following underlined c riterion "d ," to

Polley No. 3 which is r eiterated below (page 26):

3, If public funds do not permit purchase of all the salt ponds or

marshes proposed for wit hdrawal from their present uses, and if

some of the ponds or marshes are therefore proposed for

development, consideration of the development should be guided by

the following criteria.

a . Just as dedication of streets, parks, etc., is

customary in the planned unit development and

subdivision laws of many local governments,

dedication of some of the pond or marsh areas

as open water can and should be required as

part of any development. Highes t priority to

such dedication should be given to ponds that

(1) would, if opened to t he Bay, significantly

improve water circulation, (2) have especially

high wildlife values, or (3) have high

potential for water-oriented recreation.

b. Depending on the amount of pond or marsh area

to be dedicated as open water, the public may

wi s h to purchase additional areas . Plans to

-48-

purchase any ponds or marshes should give first

consideration to the priorities in paragraph a.

above.

c. Development of the ponds or marshes should

provide for retaining substantial amount of

open water, should provide for substantial

public access to the Bay, and should be in

accord with the Bay Plan policies for

non-priority uses of the shoreline.

d. Mariculture operations should be encouraged in

abandoned salt ponds to provide salt pond

owners with an economic use of their proper ty

that does not require the ponds to be drained

or filled . Managed wetlands no longer used as

duck cl ubs may be developed fo r mariculture to

allow an economic use of the land which does

not require filling.

Tbe Commission should also add the following map policy note to Plan

Map No . 10:

Fisherman's Wharf: Protect existing commercial

fishing areas froro intrusion by other uses,

improve and expand fishing support facilities ,

and enhance public access to and economic value

of Fisherman's Wharf area by adding a public

fish market .

-4 9--

ADOPTED BAY PLAN AMENDMENTS

On June 19, 1986, the Commission adopted new f indings and policies into, the Bay Plan. The Commission added to Part IV--Development of the Bay and Shoreline Findings and Policies--a new section on commercial fishing whi ch reads as follows:

Commerc ial Fishing . Findings and Policies concerning commercial fishing~ s hellfishing, and mariculture around t he Bay .

Findings

a. The construction and use of commercial fishing facilities are consistent with state and federal policies promoting public trust and water-oriented uses of the State's waters.

b. Existing commercial fishing facilitie s in the San Francisco Bay Area are centered principally in three areas: the Fisherman's Wharf area of San Francisco, north of Denni son Street Bridge in Oakland, and south of the Corps of Engineers Operations Base in Sausalito. Facilities at each location include boat docking and mooring and fish unloading , bandling, cleaning, filleting, and distribution facilities. There are no public fish markets at these facilities.

c. Commercial fishing continues to be a valuable part of the Bay Area economy and culture . The commercial fishing industry provides fresh fish for area residents and restaurants and generates primary and secondary economic benefits to the state. Addi tionally, because visitors are attracted by commercial fishing activities, the industry is an important part of the Bay Area's multi-billion dollar tourist industry .

d. Because of the relatively low direct economic return and the character of commercial fishing operations, there is pressure to convert fishing boat berths to recreational boat berths and to replace commercial fishing facilities with retail, commercial , recreational, and other uses.

e. If the existing facilities are protected, it is no t necessary to reserve shorel ine areas for commercial fishing.

f. Although clam and native oyster beds are located throughout t he Bay Area, shellfish harvesting 1s currently l imited to recreational harvesting due primarily to Bay water quality problems .

-51-

g. If and when not needed for salt production, salt ponds may have continued commercial va]ue for mariculture operations. Managed wetlands are low-Jying seasonal wetlands which could be appropriate sites for construction of mariculture ponds.

Policies

1. Commercial fishing facilities are water-oriented uses (port and water-related industry) for which the Commission can allow some Bay fill subject to fill policies contained in the McAteer-Petris Act and elsewhere in the Bay Plan.

2. Modernization of existing commercial fishing faci l ities and construction of new comme rcial fishing boat berthi ng, fish off-loading , and fish handl i ng facilities on fill may be permitted at appropriate sites with access to fishing grounds and to land transportation routes, if no alternative upland locations are feasible. Support facilities for the resident fleet and transient fishing vessel crew use, such as restrooms, parking, showers, storage facilities, and public fish markets should be provided, and, where feasible, located on land.

3. Existing commercial fis hing mooring areas, berths, and onshore facilities should not be displaced or removed unless adequate new facilities are provided or the Commission determines that adequate facilities of the same or better quality are available.

4. New commercial fishing facilities should be approved at any suitable area on the s horeline, preferably with good land transportation and space for fish handling and directly related ancillary activities. Because commercjal fishing boats do not need deep water to dock and off-load cargo, they should not preempt deep water berthing needed for marine terminals or water-related industry.

5. If commercial shellfish harvesting is reactivated in the Bay Area, handling and depur a tion facilities should be allowed only on land. Commercial shell fish harvesting facilities and activities should not interfere unduly with recreational uses of San Francisco Bay or cause s ignificant adverse impacts on fish and wildljfe resources. New Bay projects should not destroy or otherwise adversely impact existing shellfish beds.

6. Where consistent with the protection of fish and wildlife, mariculture operations should be permitted in salt ponds if salt production is no longer economically feasible or if the maricul ture operations would not interfere with the overall economic viability of salt production.

7. Consistent with the protection of fish and wildlife resources, mariculture ponds should be permitted in managed wetlands which cannot be retain~d in their existing uses.

-52-

In addition, the Commission added the following new Salt Pond s and Other Managed Wetlands finding:

h. Salt ponds are currently used to raise and harvest between one-half and three-quarters of a mil lion pounds of brine shrimp per year and have commercial value for mariculture operations.

The Commiss i on added the following new criterion 'd' to Salt Ponds and Other Managed Wetlands Policy o. 3:

d. Mariculture operations should be encouraged in a bandoned salt ponds to provide salt pond owners with an economic use of their property that. does not require the ponds to be drained or filJed. Managed wetlands no longer used as duck clubs may be developed for mariculture to .allow an economic use of the land which does not require filling.

The Commission also added the following map policy note to Plan Map No . 10:

Fisherman's arf: Improve and expand commercial fishing support facilities , Enhance public access to and economic value of Fisherman's Wharf area by encouraging development of a public fish market.

-53-

SOURCES

Barrett, Elinore M., The California Oyster Industry, 1963

Bowden, Gerald, Coastal Aquaculture Law and Policy: A Case Study of California, 1981

CH2M Hill, Commercial Fisheries Development Study, Port of Oakland, 1981

Cooomos, T. J., Editor, San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary, 1979

Fay, James, S., Anne G. Lipow, and Stephanie W. Fay, California Almanac, 1984/85 Edition, 1984

Department of Fish and Game, A Survey of the Marine Environment from Fort Ross, Sonoma County to Point Lobos, Monterey County, 1968

Department of Fish and Game, California Marine Fish Landiogs for 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, and 1976 (seven separate volumes)

Department of Fish and Game, Coastal County Fish and Wildlife Resources and Their Utilization, 1973

Department of Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife Resources Relationships and Water Quality Requirements, 1972

Department of Fish and Game, Prel.iminary Fish and Wildlife Plan for San Francisco Bay-Estuary, 1966

Fitch , John E. and Robert J. Lavenbey, Marine Food and Game Fishes of California, 1971

Jarvis, Fred E,, San Francisco Bay Shellfish Program: Preliminary San! tary Survey Report for the South Bay Study Area, 1980

Jones and Stokes AssociAtes, Incorporated, San Francisco Bay Shellfish, 1977

Jordan, David Starr and Warren Everman Barton, American Food and Game Fishes, 1923

King Denni s M., and Kenoeth L. Sbellharomer~ The California Int~riodustry Fisheries (CIF) Model : An Economic Impact Calculator for California Fisheri es, Vol ume I, 1982

Bureau of Marine Fisheries, The Commercial Fish Catch of California for the Year 194 7 witb an Historical Review 1916-1947, 1949

- 55-

McAllister, Robert O. and Thomas O. Moore, Jr., Selected Shellfish Resources of San Francisco Bay: Their Distribution, Abundance, Use, Public Access, and Recommended Management Alternatives, 1982

Milnes, Terry, The Ultimate Bay Book: The Discovery and Delights of San Francisco Bay, 1979

National Marine Fisheries Service, A Study to Determine the Export and Domestic Markets for Currently Underutilized Fish and Shellfish, 1978

National Marine Fisheries Service, Determination of West Coast Groundfisb Primary Marketing Channels, 1982

National Marine Fisheries Service, Fisheries of the United States-1983, 1984

National Marine Fisheries Service, Seafood Dealers of the Southwest Region, 1984- 1985 Editon, 1984

Pacific Fishery :Management Council, Draft Pacific Coast Groundfish Plan, 1980

Port of San Francisco, Fisherman's Wharf Action Plan, 1981

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Bay Plan, 1979

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan, 1975

Sausalito, City of, Fishing Industry Report, Memorandum dated October 31, 1978

Sausalito, City of, Revisions of Sausalito's Fishing Industry Report, Memorandum dated January 29, 1979

Sausalito, City of, Sausalito Fishing Industry Report, 1983

Skinner, John E., An Historical Review of the Fish and Wildlife Resources of the San Francisco Bay Area, 1962

State Coastal Conservancy, Commercial Fishing Facilities in California, 1984

Sutton, James, Shellfish Resources of Eastern Sao Francisco Bay: Distribution, Abundance, Public Access and Use, 1981

- 56-

LIST OF PERSONS CONSULTED IN PREPARATION OF THE REPORT

Henry Alexander, Leslie Salt Company

Bob Barton, San Francisco Bay Fishermen's Association

Jacqueline Bernier, State Coastal Conservancy

Bonnie Blackwell, Commercial Fisheries Consul tant to State Coastal Conservancy

California Aquaculture Association, Ni l and, California

Tom Costel lo, Wharfinger , Port of San Francisco

Earl Ebert, Department of Fish and Game, Monterey

Patrick J. Flanagan, Standard Fisheries Corporation

Zeke Grader, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Inc.

Kristine Hagemeyer, Norgaard Consultants

Steven E. Hanson, Port of Oakland

Rosanna Horton, State Lands Commission

Eric Knaggs, Department of Fish and Game, Long Beach

Margaret A. Kohl, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Steven J. Koplin, Fishery Reporting Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Terminal Island

Jack McGurk, Department of Health Services, Berkeley,

Keith Quan, Port of Oakland

Alice Rogers, City Councilrnember, City of Sausalito

Connie Ryan, Sea Grant, San Francisco

Emil Smith, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento

Carter Strauch, Harbormaster, Richmond Marina

Phil Swartzell, Department of Fish and Game, Menlo Park

- 5 7-

Stephanie Thornton, Women's Fisheries Network/ Producers Seafood

Denise Turner, Wharfinger, Port of San Francisco

George Wittler, ECA Architects/East Bay Fishermen's Association

Don Woodside, Staff, Joint Committee on the State's Economy

Ted Wooster, Department of Fish and Game, Yountville

- 58-

APPENDIX A

FISH LANDED IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY (1984)

FISH

Rockfish or Rockcod (Total all varieties)

Herring, Pacific

Rockfish, Unspec ifi ed

Sole. (Total. al l varieties)

Sole, Dover

Rockfish, Group Bocaccio/Chilipepper

Anchovy, Noithern

Tuna, Albacore

Sablefish

Salmon, Chinook (King)

Rock f ish, Widow

Lingcod

Rockfish, Bo c acc io

Rockfish, Group Red

Sole, English

Thornyhead

Rockfish, Group Rosefish

Croaker, White

Swordfish

Sole. Petrale

Flounder, Starry

Sole. Rex

Halibut

Sanddab

Salmon. Coho (Si l ver)

Sole, Sand

POUNDS

14,254,82 2

8,125,448

6,91.1,64 1

5,297,525

3,731,975

3,587,354

1,185,437

l.619,170

1,529,628

l.476,802

1,444,812

1,234,084

852,390

693,34 1

657,685

531,840

459,569

426,301

381,898

368,007

337,154

317,546

305,405

203 ,40 3

183,105

110,068

A- 2

Sole, Fantail

Rockfish, Yellowtail

Shark, Unspecified

Shark, Common Thresher

Rockfish, Goup Belina

Rockfish, Brown

Unspecified

Skate, Total

Surf perch

Mackeral

Rockfish, Group Small Reds

Shark, Leopard

Yellowtail

Shark, Soupfin

Flounder. Unspecified

Salmon

Rockfish. Chilipepper

Rockfish, Blue

Smelt, Whitebait

Opah

Rockfish, Black

Cabezon

Rockfish, Canary

Sole, Rock

Smelt, Surf

Shark, Brown smoothhound

Shark, White

95,474

74,267

71,827

70,836

68,138

64,548

53,047

52,591

42,943

35,616

33,985

32,299

32,281

32,060

31,069

20,451

19,165

16,164

14,213

13,154

12,097

11,954

11,125

10,440

7,754

5,662

5,501

A-3

Shark, Bonito 5,437

Hake. Pacific 5,423

Smelt. True 4,537

Sole. Unspecified 4,.305

Shark. Bigeye Thresher 4,233

Shark. Pacific Angel 4,214

Rockfish. China 4,112

Flounder, Arrowtooth 3,885

Turbot 3,125

Sole. Butter 2,025

Tuna. Total 1. 725

Rockfish, Whitebelly 1.165

Bonita. Pacific l, 024

Louvar 1,023

Silvers ides 987

Butterfish, Pacific 949

Jacksmelt 882

Seabass. White 607

Sheephead, California 647

Shark. Cow 566

Shark, Spiny Dogfish 515

Rockfish, Pacific Ocean Perch 352

Rockfish, Yelloweye 307

Shark, Gray Smoothhound 268

Grenadiers 204

Wolf-eel 196

Rockfish, Gopher 157

A-4

Eel

Rockfish, Shortbelly

Tomcod, Pacific

Smelt, Night

Ray, Bat

Greenling, Kelp

Bass, Giant Sea

Rockfish, Cowpod

Shark, Sevengill

Shark , Sixgill

Scorpionfish

Barracuda

OTHER

Crab, Dungeness

Squid , Market

Abalone, Red

Crab, Rock

Shrimp, Pacific Ocean

Urchins

Mussel

Sna i 1, Sea

Octopus

Clam, unspecified

Crab, Box

Clam, California Jackknife

Shrimp Ghost

118

11S

111

100

71

35

35

18

14

13

10

5

626,594

213,769

52,957

36 , 700

10,657

8,768

6 , 567

5,559

3,801

2,650

535

471

461

A-5

Lobster, California Spiny 283

Limpet 120

Squid, Jumbo 77

Abalone. Pinto 73

Abalone, Black 52

A- 6

APPENDIX B

DESCRIPTION OF FISH LANDED IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY

(fish landed in quantities of 10,000 pounds or more In 1984)

Source: Marine Food and Game Fishes of California

Anchovy, Northern (Engrau l is morda~)

Smal I, slim fish with very large mouth; rarely longer than seven inches long; rarely I ives longer than two to three years. Mature at one year and 4-1/2 to 5 inches . Fish swim in schools; adults remain further offshore and go doop (400 to 600 feet) dur ing daylight. Spawn year rou nd in the open ocean. Filter feeders, eating mostly crustaceans and other t iny organisms. Are eaten by every fish-eater that swims in or flies over the ocean.

Fi$h we re canned for human consumption and pet food and processed into fish rroal, and oi I. Thousands of tons are netted each year for use as live bait.

Cabezon (Scorpaen ichthys mamoratus)

Member of the sculpin family; with smooth scaleless wrinklod~looking skin. Mature at two (males) and three (females) years and 13-1/2 and 17-1/2 inches long. Spawn in the same rocky areas every year in "c011111unity nesting sites;" males guard "nests" unti I eggs hatch . Young are pelagic; when two inches long, move onshore and live in rocky habitat from intertidal area to depths of 250 feet. Feed on crab, mollusks, and smal I fish.

Cabezon is marketed fresh; the flesh is bluish-green raw and turns whita when cooked.

Croaker, Wh ite

Close ly related to the white sea bass (drum famil y); oblong fish with spines on dorsal fin. Mature at th ree to four years. Spawn late spring through sunrner. Adu lts prefer depths of 75 to 150 feet. A 40 pound fish may be 20 years old. Feed on small fish and squid.

Usual ly marketed as st eaks or fillets.

Flounder, Starry (Platichthys ste 1latus)

Flatf ish with al I fins striped with black , and rough sca les. Grow to two feet long and six to seven pounds. Can live to 15 years. Mature at two to three years and 14- 1/2 to 16-1/2 inches. Spawn November through February. live over ~ud, sand, or gravel bottom areas, and most abundant in shallow coastal wat ers, including bays, sloughs and estuaries. Have been caught offshore in depths of 1,000 feet. Feed on eat worms, crus t aceans, c lams, and small fish.

The coomerc ia l catch is made a lmost entirely with trawl nets and is usually fi I leted and sold fresh. No CO!TITJ0rcial fishing in the Bay.

Halibut (Paral ichthys cal ifornicus)

A large flatfish with a large mouth, sharp teeth, and a high arch in the lateral line above the pee.tor a I fin; brown on top, white on the bottom. Usu a 11 y found on sandy bottoms in water shallower than 120 feet. Mature at three to f ive years; a five year old fish is usually 15 inches long but can grow to 50 inches and 50 pounds. Spawn in shallow waters February to July. feed on smal I fish, particularly anchovies.

Most habibut is sold in ti I lets; flesh is white and very mild.

B-2

Harring, Pacific (Clupea haregus pa 11 as i)

A small, elongated fish which matures at about two years of age and about 10 inches long. A schooling species, herring come into the Bay to spawn December to March. Filter feeders.

The fish and the eggs are food for birds, fish, and sea I ions. The fish are caught largely for the roe which is shipped to Japan. Season: December - March.

Llngcod (Ophiodon elongatus)

Moderate sized, elongated fish with long dorsal fin with sp ines; color is dark grayish- blue to greenish- brown with blotches and mottling. Adults live near rocky bottoms at depths shallower than 350 feet. Adults mature at three years and 26 inches and about four pounds. Spawn December to March. Eggs attach to rocky substrate , males guard "nest" unti I eggs hatch. Feed on small fish.

Lingcod sold fresh as steaks and fillet. Flesh is greenish but turns white when cooked.

Mackerel (Scomber Japonicus)

Elongate body with widely separated fins. Schooling fish found from Mexico to Alaska. Year-round resident of ~est Coast waters. Mature at two to three years. Spawn March to May. Live to 12 years, up to 18 inches and two pounds. Feed on smal I fish and squid.

Opah Clampris regius)

A disk-shaped body with white spots and crimson fins whih can grown to 160 pounds and 4-1/2 feet long. Feed on other medium sized fish.

Often caught by tuna fishermen, the salmon colored flesh is tastey but dry when cooked.

Rockfish or Rockcod As a group, the largest Bay Area catch in 1984 (14 million pounds). Includes bocaccio, chilipepper, Red, and Rose; all are marketed as Red Snapper.

Bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) An oblong olive-brown fish with no spines on the head and a long upper jaw. Juveniles found in shallow wat ers just outside surf zone. Adults found in 250 -750 foot depths where bottom is firm sandy---01ud, rubble, or solid rock. Mature at 4 years old and 14 to 16 inches long. Spawn December - Apri l . Feed on small fish and crustaceans.

Sab I ef i sh (Anopo Iopoma f imbr ia)

Medium si~ed, elongated fish; black or gray on top, lighter below. Adults live on the bottom over areas of firm mud in deep water {1,000 feet). Mature at five years to six and 24 inches, about 4 to 6-1/2 pounds. A 20-year fish wi I I be 30 pounds and 40 to 42 inches. Spawn late winter to early spring in deep water. Feed on fish, squid, octupi, and smal I bottom organisms.

The flesh is fine grained and very oily. Marketed as "butt-erffsh fillets'' or sold as smoked Alaskan cod.

B-3

Salmon, King or Chinex>k (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha}

Medium sized oblong fish, adults have small black spots on upper body. Salmon are pelagic schex>ling fish; schoo l is 100 or less. Average ocean caught salmon is 10 pounds; spawner is about 20 pounds. Males usually spawn at three or four; die after spawning ruh up the Sacrarrento River. Young migrate downstream1 tail first, at night. Fish often travel hundreds of miles before they return to the home stream to spawn two fu se11en years later. Feed on small fish, squid, and larval crabs.

Conmercial fishermen catch salmon on lines. Ocean caught fish are superior in quality, flavor, and condition to river-<aught fish. Chinook is used almost exclusively fresh.

Sanddab 1 Pacific (Citharichthys sord fdus)

A sma l l mouthed, left-eyed flatfish. Mature at three years and 7-1/2 inches long, but grow to 12 inches long, weighing 12 ouni;:es. Live on the bottom, over finn sand or sandy mud, usually at depths of 120 to 300 feet. Spawn July to September. Feed on a variety of small fish, crustaceans, and worms.

Sanddabs are often prepared by removing head, fins, tail, and scales, then deep frying.

Shrimp, Ocean (Pandalus jordani)

Usually live to age three; mature at 18 to 30 months old. Spawn in November and December. The young start out as males and change to females at about two years. Found over green mud or green ,nud and sand. Tend to schex> I in I oca I i zed areas or "sh r imp beds." Ocean shrimps eat wonns, porifera, di atoms, and appendages of isopods and amphipods.

Smelt (Osrreridae - Smelt Family)

Smal I elongated fish with white body. Grow no longer than six inches. May live to three years old. Gather in large schoo ls and spawn in the surf at night, Januar y through September. Prefer beaches with coarse and gravelly sand. Feed on smal I crustaceans and are eaten by just about every fish-eating bird, seal, and fish.

Smelt are often used for fex>d for animals in aquariums and are excel lent for eating, crisp-fried.

Sole There are eight species of sole landed in San Francisco Bay, a total of over 5 mi I I ion pounds in 1984. All are marketed as ti I let of sole. Dover sole is most cannon.

Sole, Dover (Microstomus paciflcus)

A member of the righteye flounder family, the Dover sole is distinguished by the abundance of slime it secretes making it very slippery to handle. Mature at fi11e years old and 12 inches longj maximum size is 10 pounds and two feet long. Spawn in deep water from November to March, After spawning, adults migrate to shallower waters . Live over mud bottoms at depths ranging from 100 feet to },000 feet. Feed on worms and other soft bodied invertebrates.

Catch is marketed as fresh or frozen fillets.

B-4

Surfperch (Amphistichus)

Stubby, oblong-shaped fish, sides are bronze, brassy, or gold bars and spots against a whitish background. Live to seven to nine years old and to 16 inches. Mate in fal I and early winter, females give birth to live young March to July. Average "litter" is 45 young. Live in the breaking surf along sandy beaches and offshore waters. Feed on sand crabs and other smal I crustaceans.

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)

Large scaleless fish with long flattened sword. Usually found June to September south of Point Conception but may come as far north as Oregon, depending on water temperature. Closest spawning area is Marquesas Islands. Range from six to 14 feet long and 38 to 1,200 pounds. Eat largely anchovies and squid, also smal I fish.

Very popular fish, often sole in steaks.

Tuna, Albacore (Thunnus alalunga)

Oblong fish with long pectoral fins. Mature at about 36 inches long. Spawn in mid-Pacific between January and June. Seasonally migrate to California coast. Prefer wann water but have been taken in Alaska. Travel large circle from California to Japan. Eat smal I fish, squid, and shrimplike organisms. Gains six to eight pounds per year for first six to seven years, thus six year old fish would be 40 inches to fork of tail and about 45 pounds.

Historically canned but with recent closure of last California tuna cannery, now marketed as fresh steaks.

Yel lowtai I (Seriola dorsal is)

Oblong fish of the Jack family. Schooling fish, ranges north to Monterey Bay. Usually found close to shore. Largest fish are up to five feet a~d over 90 pounds. Spawn at two to throe years and 10 pounds. Spawn June to October, off Baja California. Eat smal I fish and squid.

Most yellowta i l is marketed fresh.

B-5

APPENDI X C

BAY AREA SHELLFISH BEDS

APPENDIX CBay Area Shellfish Beds

Bed Number Location Area (SF)

Number of Adult Clams: Mya

Number of Adult Clam: Tapes Source

1 Candlestick Point 500 0 500 Wooster2 NE of Bayview Park 176 264 176 Wooster3 Bayview Park 19,000 57,024 38,016 Wooster4 East of Bayshore 1,500 1,500 0 Wooster5 East of Visitation Valley 15,450 0 41,715 Wooster6 East of Brisbane 5,410 104 2,750 Wooster7 Oyster Point 600 0 23,000 Wooster8 South of Pt San Bruno 17,880 38,640 22,880 Wooster9 Burlingame 249,984 664,138 312,276 Wooster

10 North of Coyote Pt 102,600 10,800 700,600 Wooster11 South of Coyote Pt 78,000 0 78,000 Wooster12 San Mateo Creek unk unk unk Dahlstrom

13 North of San Mateo Bridge 1,200 13,200 0 Wooster14 Foster City 1,106,424 0 9,913,000 Dahlstrom15 Redwood Creek 18,000 9,000 594 Wooster

16West End Dumbarton Bridge 1,872 3,744 11,232 Wooster

17 East End Dumbarton Bridge 7,152 11,904 44,106 Wooster18 San Leandro Marina 41,400 318,780 0 Wooster19 Oakland Airport 84,000 10,080 20,160 Wooster20 San Leandro Bay 100,800 705,600 383,040 Wooster

21SW Corner of Alameda Island 7,200 21,600 79,200 Wooster

22Alameda Memorial State Beach 17,357 1,000 116,910 Wooster

23 Oakland Inner Harbor 39,000 0 507,000 Wooster24 Emeryville 1,600 4,800 1,600 Wooster25 Berkeley, Bancroft Way 22,800 48,600 42,960 Wooster26 Berkeley, University Ave 800 8,000 0 Wooster27 Albany Hill 3,780,000 12,096,000 0 Wooster28 Point Isabel 1,104 15,456 1,104 Wooster29 Point Richmond 200,000 0 850,000 Jones & Stokes

30Castro Point to Point San Pablo 128,400 64,800 49,200 Wooster

31 Point Pinole 0 0 unk RWQCB32 Tara Hills 48,000 326,400 0 Wooster33 Tara Hills to Pinole 61,500 86,100 0 Wooster34 Pinole 60,032 792,422 0 Wooster35 Rodeo 5,000 40,000 0 Wooster

APPENDIX CBay Area Shellfish Beds

36 South of Gallinas Creek 2,328 15,132 0 Wooster

37Between Gallinas Creek and Rat Rock 1,120 16,800 0 Wooster

38 Rat Rock Area 2,000 16,000 0 Wooster39 San Rafael Bay 25,000 260,000 50,000 Wooster40 San Quentin 9,600 201,600 0 Wooster

41West Side of Strawberry Point 28,800 31,680 54,720 Wooster

42 Richardson Bay 12,000 54,000 6,000 Wooster43 Brooks Island unk unk unk Jones & Stokes44 Paradise Cay, Northside 150,000 1,000,000 unk McAllister45 Paradise Cay, Southside 1,800 7,000 12,600 McAllister46 Point Isabel unk 20,000 30,000 Wooster47 Rodeo Marina Small 2,000 unk Wooster48 Anza Lagoon unk 330,000 20,000 RWQCB

IOIJJICZ1 Jm1•1 I Stok••• &en Pranci•c,o ..y lhcllt l 1h, 1977.

_o___Ls---~·~----UMU

San Francisco Bay Conservation Bay Area Shellf ish Bedsand Development Commission

c-s